Talk:1001 Ways to Beat the Draft
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-02-17. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
prod and copyvio edit
It wouldn't be hard to pair down the quotes to a smaller number, if that is the concern. To me this is comparable with many other works of the beat generation and its immediate followers. This isn't the most notable work, but it isn't the least, either. If you want to shorten the list, that might be a good idea. But please tell me why it isn't notable? Smmurphy(Talk) 03:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Please see Wikipedia:Notability for a full discussion of notability guidelines. The primary criterion is that a topic have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial independent sources. This article isn't and for good reason. As the article itself admits, this is simply a humorous list, one of many, compiled 40 years ago. Is it amusing? Yes. Is it notable? No. Regarding copyvio, the list is a complete copy of the original. This is the definition of a copyvio. Even if it isn't, see WP:NOT for why such a list still wouldn't merit inclusion. Soltak | Talk 17:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- This is probably Kupferberg's most well known work, it is the subject of multiple books on the beat generation and anti-war movements [1], including the reader mentioned in the article. I'm not sure where you get that this isn't the subject of multiple, non-trivial sources. As for copyvio, no one has any problem with your removing some or all of the examples. Smmurphy(Talk) 21:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- For this article to be kept the following two conditions must be met: 1. The entire text of list be removed. (There can be an article about the list, it can even include a link to the list, but the list itself cannot be duplicated here. 2. Reliable sources must be added to satisfy WP:V. Soltak | Talk 00:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- For this article to be deleted, it will have to go through the AFD system, as prod and speedy are both contested (I have a couple days to remove the tag myself, if no one else does). At that time, the question about how much, if any, of the list should remain can be addressed by people watching AFD, if that is where this goes. Less than 2% of a long list doesn't seem like too much to put here, especially as there has been no attempt to select particularly funny entries, which may degrade the value of the published work, but rather the first bunch were chosen as representative. As for notability, the above google books link provides reliable sources of notability which could easily be added to the article (and certainly will). Smmurphy(Talk) 00:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- For this article to be kept the following two conditions must be met: 1. The entire text of list be removed. (There can be an article about the list, it can even include a link to the list, but the list itself cannot be duplicated here. 2. Reliable sources must be added to satisfy WP:V. Soltak | Talk 00:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- This is probably Kupferberg's most well known work, it is the subject of multiple books on the beat generation and anti-war movements [1], including the reader mentioned in the article. I'm not sure where you get that this isn't the subject of multiple, non-trivial sources. As for copyvio, no one has any problem with your removing some or all of the examples. Smmurphy(Talk) 21:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Please see Wikipedia:Notability for a full discussion of notability guidelines. The primary criterion is that a topic have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial independent sources. This article isn't and for good reason. As the article itself admits, this is simply a humorous list, one of many, compiled 40 years ago. Is it amusing? Yes. Is it notable? No. Regarding copyvio, the list is a complete copy of the original. This is the definition of a copyvio. Even if it isn't, see WP:NOT for why such a list still wouldn't merit inclusion. Soltak | Talk 17:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
New York Review of Books article edit
Although Kupferberg's work was reviewed by the NYRB articles in the 1960s, this book is only mentioned. The review linked in the article says only this about 1001 WtBtD: Similarly, a year ago the only imaginable "manual" for avoiding the draft was the scatalogical (and occasionally practical) 1001 Ways to Beat the Draft by Tuli Kupferberg and Robert Bashlow. Now Conrad Lynn has published a handbook "so that those who wish to resist may be aided in having all their rights that might help them to refuse induction into the armed forces." It continues to discuss Conrad Lynn's more legalistic How to Stay Out of the Army: A Guide to Your Rights Under the Draft Law. I don't think that this warrents a mention in this article. Smmurphy(Talk) 05:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)